June 9, 2009

Okay. But, now, wait. $100 million. I forget. That's a lot of money, right? We're supposed to think that when we're supposed to think that. But at other times, $100 billion is hardly worth noticing.

Those holding 92 percent of the $6.9 billion in secured debt already approved a deal that would give bondholders $2 billion. Together, Indiana pension funds said they had $42 million invested in Chrysler, less than 1 percent of its secured debt. They paid about 43 cents on the dollar to acquire their share and, under Chrysler's plan, would get back 29 cents on the dollar.

The bankruptcy judge said, in effect, that these small players should not stand in the way of a deal that could save Chrysler and keep the company in business making cars and trucks.

So $42 million is chump change. And the rule of law? No time for that! It's an eeeemmmmerrrrrgenceeeeee.

It's all about protecting the UAW, and screwing everyone else...hurry, hurry before someone looks behind the curtain.

It's okay, though. The administration has all those really experienced car guys running the show, right? Some of them may actually own a car, although they don't drive because they have chauffeurs these days.

You know who I mean, the smart guys who think the best way to preserve American jobs is to rig things up so ChryCo dealers (the ones who have been chosen to remain)can sell shitboxes made in Italy.

Thank you, Justice Ginsburg, for the reminder that there are three branches of government.

Only Obama and his advisers seem to be allowed to deliberate anymore. It's as if the President thinks he can hold a mini debate on a topic with his swarm of Czars and then magically come up with the best possible compromise with his infinite wisdom.

Maybe if we had elected someone with more experience with Congress, we wouldn't have someone who acts like the other branches of government only existed to rubber-stamp his decisions.

Wait, I thought those bondholders were just fat cat speculators who lit their Cuban cigars with rolled up $100 bills. You mean to tell met that the people holding this thing up are pension funds of teachers, firemen and police?

Obama is proving he's just as much a piss poor student of the law as he is of history.

Meanwhile, the health care crisis will not be wasted. Kennedy has it solved: nationalized health care, ruled by an unelected agency. Property decisions taken over by unaccountable bureaucrats. Hurry! It's a crisis!

The question that the media should pose to Obama's car team is "Why the rush?". Is it to make sure no one understands the serious flaws of the deal and break down of rule of law if they are okayed, and a precedent is set as Ann so rightly points out?

Name me 2 people you know who have owned a Fiat in the last 10 years.

I can only name one in the last 27 years and that car made the late 70 US Models appear to be stellar vehicles.

Why must Chrylser be liquidated? That is the ruse used by the Gov't to rush this. Cannot it be merged with GM to create a second car maker who does not have to be sucking on the teat of the Government?

This is political payback to the UAW, clear and simple, while also putting more power in the hands of folks who know little to nothing on how business is run. They just know they are the smartest folks in DC.

Well if the Dems empower the judiciary to create gay marriage out of thin air (because it is easier than just passing a law to do it the correct way) why should they be surprised when the judiciary starting doing lots of other legislative functions.

Well in fairness to the AIG insurance companies, they aren't the ones receiving taxpayer money, the parent holding company is. In fact, it's the downstream insurance companies that were actually doing quite well and are solvent. The problem is name branding and they are taking the brunt of the shit storm that the holding company has wrought.

Excellent case of lazy journalism that doesn't understand how holding companies work and paint the whole industry with the ugly bruch.

The free market following from a respect for the legal concept of private property owned by private people will produce products and wealth or die trying. The seizing of whatever is needed from unarmed weaklings who are holding back freely giving away everything to the collective for re-distribution ALWAYS stops production of everything. It only works by eating the past production stolen from others until the others run out too. The amazing Mr Obama is from that world view that all private property is a crime, especially the wealth Americans have accumulated from the rest of the poor people of the world. Chrysler is his now from his world view since it is only a hunk of that stolen property.

Charities -- the really big ones will be funded so they can be major "NGO" players.

The Jewish and Christian ones will be either given a put up or shut up notice. The little ones will be papered to death..

Obama doesn't want to nationalize charities, he wants them destroyed. Hence his desire to reduce the tax deductions for charitable donations. Typical socialist, the State can distribute that money better than a private charity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on purely economic/industrial policy issues, aside from the "green" farrago, aren't his mainstream supporters (outisde of the unions, etc. with a stake in the matter) quietly slinking away?

"The amazing Mr Obama is from that world view that all private property is a crime"

I agree, but I somehow think he would take issue with my coming over to his house (and not The White House) and helping myself to what's in his 'fridge. Kind of like the hypocrisy of his friend Bill Ayers calling the cops to come to his aid. These utopian ideals are all to be applied to someone else, not them.

We are heading into an energy crisis (peak oil - global demand increasing and production {US, Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico....} falling, global prices are and will continue to increase, certain supplies are being taken off the open market) and as such the government must take over the industry and 'save' us. There will be rationing.

True confession: Being born and brought up an America in the mid 20th century I took history in high school (none to speak of in college) I NEVER remember the point being made that personal property rights was (were?) key to America's uniqueness. (I did have a nice guy who was pushing the UN in the 60s ... "UN We Believe" It was an excellent school system. :-|)

Nor was the "rule of law" ever mentioned directly. It was always "balance of power" between the three branches.

I got to be old and had an epiphany (in 2000 -- the Florida Supreme Court getting involved galvanized me) and was stunned to see what had not been taught up front. (I think we were all supposed to "get it" by osmosis back in those post WW II days when we were good and They were bad.)

If it were not for the internet I am sure I would still be in a bubble.

So hurrahs to the judges and justices who are ruling on the law -- not emotion or narrative or life story or threats.

I hate to see people taking their anger out on GM and Chrysler by not buying their cars.

I have close family working at both Ford and GM, and maybe this will sound silly, but there a decent, hard-working people at all of these car companies. Lots of them...thousands of them. People who just went to work and did what was asked of them. Victims in this too, I think.

So, I'm not saying go out of your way to buy Chrysler or GM, but boycott? Who does that hurt? Lots and lots of communities of ordinary people. In my city alone, three huge dealerships are closing.And the Livonia GM plant.

Oh, God. That reads like I'm whining, sorry.

Anyway, Justice Ginsburg was right. I hope SCOTUS stops the Administration's illegal and possibly corrupt meddling. It might hurt my state more, but I'd like laws to mean something.

Ann Althouse: And the rule of law? No time for that! It's an eeeemmmmerrrrrgenceeeeee.

Which is also why Obama's moral righteousness about "torture" is total bull. Is there anyone still naive enough to believe he wouldn't suspend the rule of law to save NYC from a WMD attack? Just another eeeemmmmerrrrrgenceeeeee.

Usually I'd agree with the government's argument that a very small minority of a firm's creditors should not be able to block a reorganization plan that every other interested party has accepted. However, this is hardly the usual case. Here there are substantial and credible claims that most of Chrysler's bond holders were coerced into accepting the reorganization plan. (I'm not saying that's true; I'm saying the claims are both substantial and credible.)

The original court should have determined whether or not the claims of coercion had any merit. Instead, the court took at face value the acquiescence of parties who, allegedly, had only agreed to accept less than their due because the Administration held a gun to their head. Accepting the coerced bond holders' word under these circumstances is akin to following the "wishes" of a hostage that, once he's eventually released, he doesn't want his captors pursued and prosecuted. We generally don't place too much faith on the accuracy of the expressed desires of a hostage (while still a captive); nor should we think banks under the sway of TARP money are acting with unfettered freewill.

Doing something I have never done...I'm reposting my response to this fiasco from an earlier thread.

It seems like the pension fund made a bad investment; buying these bonds at a discount when they knew Chrysler was in the toilet.

Wishful thinking should be punished

As should any shred of entrepreneurship, initiative, innovation or any other portion of capitalism, according to the Obama regime.

The point isn't that that the mutual funds or investment firms bought an investment at a reduced rate. The point is that OBAMA has violated the law, is using criminal tactics to favor one group of investors (the ones who voted for him and gave him LOTS of money) over the other investors who by right of contract law should be further in line in a bankruptcy proceeding.

I'm an investment advisor. Some of my clients, generally LOL's (little ole ladies) personally bought some of these types of bonds and notes years and years ago when they still had good credit ratings.(GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers, Bank Of America and other industrial and financial companies). They also bought mutual funds that contained these types of investments. The reason for purchasing was income. Monthly income to supplement their pensions, social security.

Unless they sold their bonds and mutual funds at the first hint of the avalanche that Obama was going to launch on the economy, (some did some would not) they are now looking at greatly reduced values in their portfolios.

I can attest that I and MANY other financial professionals will NOT invest in any firm that is Unionized nor in any firm that may be the next take over target of the Federal Government... and God knows who King Obama is going to set his sights on next. Foreign bonds are looking better all the time especially since our dollar is about to be worthless.

Get your math right. It's not $43 million. They lost 33% on their investment, or $14 million. Not surprising, since Chysler went bankrupt. Now how much do they really think they are going to get back if the assets are liquidated. Considering that 99% of the debt holders went along with the agreement, I would bet a lot of money that they would actually lose even more. Maybe there is a 5% chance that they'd only lose $13 million instead of $14 million.

So the real question is, do you let this drag on past next Monday, so that the Fiat deal falls through, and tens of thousands of people lose their jobs, and then the justices will rule in favor of Chrysler anyway - except then it is too late, because there are no longer any buyers? All because of one minor debt holder?

They can appeal all they want, but the Obama Administration is absolutely right to speak to the urgency of the matter. Next Monday is the deadline. Let's hope the justices can rule on the matter by then.

Then again - it's likely at least 4 of the 9 justices agree with Rush Limbaugh, and want America to fail.

Even if they ARE losing $100 million a day, and even if that IS a lot of $$$...

So what?! So far all I've heard from them is POLITICAL arguments.

What do those points have to do with LEGAL ARGUMENTS in court?! I'd love to hear the O Team try this approach with SCOTUS.Scalia: "Could you please cite the federal stature mandating that the gov't prevent business losses?"

So, I'm not saying go out of your way to buy Chrysler or GM, but boycott? Who does that hurt? Lots and lots of communities of ordinary people. In my city alone, three huge dealerships are closing.And the Livonia GM plant.

Very sad. But you must realize that buying a large important item like your car or investing your money isn't a decision based on emotion.

The rational person buys or invests based on return on the dollar. If the car is crap or going to be crap based on idiotic mandates from the government, if you are not going to be able to repair or purchase parts in the future and because we have instituted protectionism (hello Great Depression) those parts should they be available are going to be expensive.

If the bonds are going to bear a very very large interest rate in the future to entice investors, they will need to ver very carefully weigh the risks versus the return. Is it worth the risk of the Government siezing your investments and making them worthless to get a few extra percentage points? Probably not. Thus interest rates are going to have to become extremely high to make it worth the investor's while.

In the meantime......rates in the consumer sector will rise accordingly. Welcome to 18 to 22%% auto loans and 15% home loans. Hello....Welcome back Carter.

Hey, I wasn't in love with the idea of McCain as President; however, right now I'd really like to have Mitt Romney serving as head of Treasury or Commerce. He's unqualified to work on the current "crisis" for the Obama Administraiton: He paid his taxes and he knows something about the car industry.

There are tons of UAW members as well who are not just "go alongs", either. They just didn't have enough votes over the years, but not every union worker is as greedy as the UAW.

What I think is a shame is the glee about punishing the UAW and these car companies, totally disregarding the neighbor who is impacted. I don't mind the lessons of these failures as much as I mind that.

So, I'm not saying go out of your way to buy Chrysler or GM, but boycott? Who does that hurt?

You and I agree on many things, Darcy, but this isn't one of them.

This isn't really about Chrysler or GM. It's about government favoritism and cheating the secured creditors.

As a Ford bondholder and taxpaying citizen, I am not going to patronize companies that are given an unfair advantage over Ford at taxpayer expense to prop up the allies of a political hack President and his cronies.

Regarding favoritism to the UAW it's interesting that with GM, at least, the smaller unions have at present received no offers from GM or Obama. This will leave 41,000 GM-IUE retirees (including me) without any retirement benefits. The union has filed a complaint with the bankruptcy judge alleging unequal treatment.

What I think is a shame is the glee about punishing the UAW and these car companies, totally disregarding the neighbor who is impacted.

What I think is a shame is that the ordinary, non unionized citizen is being taxed to death to support OBSCENE and UNSUSTAINABLE union wage and benefit packages.

If the Unions hadn't been so greedy and hadn't tried to kill the Golden Goose over the years, perhaps there might be some sympathy. As it is, the rest of the working stiffs and self employed don't have gold plated retirement plans or diamond encrusted health insurance. Most don't have either: a pension that pays almost full wages or any health insurance at all.

Why is it fair to take more from the rest of us in taxes and increased cost of goods and increased cost of living to subsidize this out and out GREED?

The Bush administration loaned about $200 billion to a series of banks last fall. Today, the Obama administration let 10 of those banks give the money bank. Of those 10 who gave the money back, we earned interest on the investment, plus we will have a nice return on the warrants as well. The others are clamoring to return the money as well, and we'll likely earn a profit on that $200 billion investment. And Obama will have gotten the government out of a private business intervention that the Bush Administration got us into.

Yes, we'll lose a massive amount of money on AIG, but again, that was Bush. (Note - I'm not disagreeing with that investment, just commenting).

As for GM and Chrysler, well again, that was Bush who made those investments. Obama led these companies into bankruptcy. So what are we objecting to? That Obama is insisting on some upside for taxpayers? Well - why shouldn't he? Are we really proposing that the government forfeit its rightful piece of the remaining pie of these companies? Not me. Let these companies get out of bankruptcy, and then sell off our piece of the pie once these companies are listed on an exchange again. Why should we hand it over to hedge funds now? That's silly. But again, in two years, we won't own any of these companies - so Obama will have reduced government intervention that Bush started.

Overall, the main goal of all these programs has been to unfreeze the credit markets. If you want an unbiased view of how that is going, check out this site:

I certainly get this. At the same time, this is precisely why I am against the recent economic strategy. This is the continued problem in a lot of countries. Overinvolvment by government creates and maintains a system were people become dependent on government efficiency and skill. This dependence means that profitability and quality go out the window, but people keep attached because the alternatives become increasingly difficult in the short term.

Over time the government gains immense power over every area of our life, abusing our notions of kindness to others, and making us all dependent on government power, and whim, to survive. That's a long term path to deep poverty, even as it promises short term help.

It is, in essence, a hatred for the poor, because it uses the plight of the poor to secure more and more personal power, but never, not ever, providing real pathways out of that dependence.

Over time people begin to even lose hope, because there's nothing other than the mediocre government crumbs to be had.

The way out is not government dependence but rather continued innovation, investment and passion fueled dreams pursued by men and women with creative insight. Yes, absolutely, we have to pay attention to those who suffer loss, but the loss we all suffer will be so much greater if mediocrity is applauded in the name of government control.

If the Unions hadn't been so greedy and hadn't tried to kill the Golden Goose over the years, perhaps there might be some sympathy..

That's why I've heard Republicans all these years steering their kids into a career path of working on a line in Detroit. I never cease to be amazed at how Republicans drape themselves in the flag while simultaneously calling for the death of American companies and jobs. The second a Democrat is running things it's patriotic to revolt, secede, and move your operations off-shore to escape THE MAN.

As for GM and Chrysler, well again, that was Bush who made those investments.

I seem to recall that Bush made those "investment" at the behest/request of the incoming Administration. Not that it's pertinent to the issue at hand, mind you, but it is exactly the kind of thing that gets conveniently flushed down the memory hole now and then.

But I don't object to the appeal. What I do object to is the Supreme Court sitting on their lazy ass, taking a vacation, going to Starbucks, changing their Depends diapers, etc. - instead of doing this job and deciding this quickly.

So if the government stops the loss of 100 mil is that like revenue growth? somehow it has worked that way with jobs. If 10 people might have been laid off but weren't the pres claims job growth. Would that he were correct.

"Actually, the rational thing for many consumers is to buy a GM car, since the discounts are great right now."

The rational choice for most consumers who actually need a better car is to purchase a well used Japanese model. The discounts will never make up for the way any new car nose dives in value the moment you drive it off the lot. A new car is a status symbol. When economic times get tough for rational people, it should be the last thing they consider. When all you need is good reliable transportation, your choices are still very good at a fraction of the cost of a new car. I live in a state where I get double dinged for purchasing new. Sales tax and the tag fees are astronomical. I haven't bought a new vehicle since 1992 and never will again. Isabel

I've had great luck with GM vehicles over the years. In fact, I believe a well-built Chevy Blazer saved my life and more importantly, my 5-year old (at the time) son's life during a high speed rollover accident on the freeway. Truck was totalled, but we were unhurt. I've had some horrible Ford models (Tempo!!! Arggh.), but I love my current F250.

I currently own a Chrysler Concorde as well. Nice, sturdy car, and I'll be sorry when it finally dies of old age. :)

Buying a car isn't usually about the resale value to me. I hang on to them, so I want something that will last, and I don't want to be running to the dealer a lot. GM has provided that kind of vehicle for me more than the other two.

If unprofitable car companies were allowed to fail, the workers would get jobs eventually in profitable companies. Hey, Toyota's hiring! Eventually GM will fail so why pour billions into an empty hole? (Unions, I know.)

I do make a distinction between union leaders and union workers, tho. Most employees have no choice but to "join" a union by paying dues. The union exists to fund their PACs with dues money extorted from their members, and then pass it on to Democrats. Most state employees and teachers I know hate their union but are powerless except to file a lawsuit, which is winnable but lengthy.

DBQ won't buy a GM or Chrysler, because Hugh Hewitt told her to boycott the companies. Strange reason, but hey - it's her call.

I like the way DTL puts words into my mouth and can read my mind. LOL

Every car I own is a GM or Chevy. I wanted to buy a Chrysler 400 a few years ago because I liked the looks and the engine, but after sitting in the car, I realized it was horrible. The seats were uncomfortable, the interior badly designed, made out of cheap plastic and just NOT worth the money.

IF I buy a new car in the future, it will certainly not be one of the new Government mandated death traps or an expensive, impractical and inefficient "green weenie" vehicle.

The reason I won't buy GM in the future is economic and practical. The cars will be too expensive for the quality. The after market replacement parts are going to be expensive. The dealerships where you can have factory warranty service are being eliminated. The quality of the cars are going to be crappola crippled by Government interference in the free market place of design, engineering and saleability.

The reason I won't invest in GM or any other government siezed business is also practical. I want my clients and myself....to MAKE MONEY. When you are under threat of siezure by the Government and under extortion by the Unions, the risk return ratio is just too great.

Sure. I'll bet you $100,000 it does go through. If I'm wrong I'll simply say it was a bad decision on my part and being the true liberal you are, will forgive the debt. On the other hand if I win, you still have to pay me.

Barack Obama is trying to force through a mistake that George W., with his MBA from Harvard, would not have made. Merging two weak companies never makes one strong, healthy company. It results in one terminally ill company. Barack Obama needs to take a look at what happened to the Penn Central.

Looking at it another way, if Daimler-Benz paid a premium to off-load Chrysler, just a few years after paying billions to buy it, what makes anyone think that FIAT will do any better?

PatCA, the article you link was interesting. I think the part I liked best was the union leaders being concerned that potential non-union workers would be getting benefits without "paying their fair share." Funny how these same Democrats think it's fine for the 40% of the population that pays no Federal income tax to receive the benefits of living in this country without "paying their fair share."

"That's fine Isabel. Then the right decision for you is to buy a used Japanese car. My father just bought a GM, as he got an awesome deal. That's the right decision for him.

DBQ won't buy a GM or Chrysler, because Hugh Hewitt told her to boycott the companies. Strange reason, but hey - it's her call."

If you have the disposable income to buy a new car, that is fine with me and I don't care for what reasons you do or do not buy a new car. Just don't fool yourself into thinking it is an "investment" It is an expense. A new car rapidly declines in value while it sucks more money in maintenance, fuel, insurance, taxes and licensing fees. Even with zero percent financing, you will still pay through the nose when you calculate the total cost of ownership and the rapid decline in resale. People who think they got a “great deal” usually can’t do math. Or they ignore the math because they WANT the car. The auto industry for a long time has relied on people buying cars based on an emotional decision, not an economic calculation. The auto makers have helped it along by allowing purchasers to roll an upside down loan on a current car into a new vehicle. Wasn’t GMAC one of the few if not the only profitable division of GM? Those days are over. The credit crunch and volatile fuel prices have killed the market and the millions of used American made vehicles dumped on the used car market by the rental car companies further depress the prices and the demand for GM and Chrysler products. That is why new car sales are tanking. The Japanese makers are in trouble too. They are just in less trouble because their vehicles hold their value better and their business model is not the “house of cards” that GM built.

I still haven't figured out how they expect these car companies to be successful. Last night I was watching an interview with a GM dealer who was getting shut down, despite being in the top 10% of sales, and having just agreed to a major upgrade of his dealership two days before he got his notice. How do they expect to sell even as many cars as they were selling even last year, if they dump 40% or so of their dealerships AND the determination of which dealerships to close doesn't appear to have been made on an economic or sales basis?

I think at some point, the backstory on why some dealers were picked and others not will come out, and I don't think it will be pretty. What will be interesting is to see whether or not the bankruptcy (or other) laws will protect those who made those decisions, since they don't appear to have been made on an economic basis.

They are just in less trouble because their vehicles hold their value better and their business model is not the “house of cards” that GM built..

Foreign car makers don't have to pay health care to employees, when they are in trouble their government gladly subsidizes them, and they do "free trade". We import 600,000 vehicles from S Korea and we export 6000. Free trade is only for American suckers. And I don't think their citizens call boycotts of their own products.

I would have no trouble buying American if American cars were on par with their foreign counterparts. But they haven't been, garage. You pay out a lot of money for a new car. When you buy one Honda, and it has no overnight time in the shop and has been on the road for over 200,000 miles, why on earth would you not buy another one of those gems?

Also since garage is big on government funded health care, allow me to shed some light on how much that currently costs the taxpayer right now with this little tidbit of data.

Right now Uncle Sam covers 45.6 million of the great unwashed through Medicare. That is less than 1/3 of the total US population. In 2008, total Medicare benefits paid amounted to $468 billion dollars. That’s not counting disability payments either which is another $109 billion. Now you can eliminate the entire US defense budget and you may be able to squeak in another 40-50 million more of the hoi polloi for government health care. Or we can just make garage and his comrades happy and rack up those tax rates to pre-JFK levels to pay for it all. Then we won’t have to worry about buying a GM car because we won’t have any fucking money to do it. But we’ll have free health care.

Yes, Defenseman, fair share fee is an interesting concept when you dig into it. In our litigation, the judge found that 80-90% of our "fair share" dues went to political action committees, not employee services. So our payment was reduced 80%.

Unions know this; most of these lawsuits end up the same way. They are just hoping employees will go along with it out of inertia or lack of knowledge of their rights.

Bush was stupid in the end. He should of let GM and Chrysler file for chapter 11 with the promise to guarantee the loans of the DIP financiers. Obama used his power to cut a deal to maximize the benefit for the union at the expense of the bond and share holders.Extremely stupid as a business decision by Obama and one that if not corrected immediately by the courts will have severe long term ramifications for investors and hence for the US economy. As a GM bondholder I will never purchase any corporate bond issued by a public US company or invest in any fund that does so. As long as the government can come in and change the rules and terms in mid-stream there is no certainty in the investment so better not do it at all. Let us hope that the court keeps this country from becoming a banana republic if Obama keeps on with his Marxist idiocy.

Last time I checked, there isn't a law that requires corporations to provide health care to employees. If you can direct me to the pertinent federal statute that says otherwise, I'll will stand corrected.

Hoosier "This may come as a shock to you garage but domestic companies don't have to pay health care either.."

Garage "Well that would be a shock Hoosier, but it isn't true. GM paid out 4.6 billion in 2007 for health care, more than it paid for steel."

What Hoosier means is that Domestic Companies aren't forced to pay health benefits....YET! Just wait until all businesses are going to be forced into BK by Obama's health czar's unrealistic programs.

The Unionized firms are forced/extorted by Union contracts. If they were not so forced, they would probably pay some benefits in order to retain employees, just not the EXCESSIVE benefits that they are forced to pay now.

Don't you think, Garage, that there is something wrong when a company has to pay out more for the Union's 'Cadillac' benefit packages than it costs to actually manufacture the Cadillac itself?

Don't even get me started on the disaster of Defined Benefit Retirement programs. The unfunded pension liability of these types of plans is what is eating up corporations alive and causing Cities to declare bankruptcy.

Last time I checked, there isn't a law that requires corporations to provide health care to employees. If you can direct me to the pertinent federal statute that says otherwise, I'll will stand corrected.

There is not.....yet.

Companies are not required to offer health or retirement benefits.....yet.

A smart employer will try to offer these perks to keep their trained and valuable employees.

HOWEVER,the reason that the auto makers are in trouble is that they have been extorted over the years to be forced to pay UNREASONABLE and EXCESSIVE benefits by the Unions and to accept loss of productivity by ridiculous job restrictions.

The Union doesn't give one rip about the health of the company or even the continuation of the company. All they care about is receiving their dues and providing golden eggs to their dues paying members. They have killed the golden goose and as far as I'm concerned they deserve to all lose their jobs.

Don't you think, Garage, that there is something wrong when a company has to pay out more for the Union's 'Cadillac' benefit packages than it costs to actually manufacture the Cadillac itself?.

Well I don't exactly have the Cadillac Package, and my insurance premium is almost identical to my mortgage. And it will continue to go up and up -- what is the conservative answer to that? What I don't get is you guys always, without fail, always want blame the employee when execs give themselves raises and huge retirement packages while the company is hurting. Why is it the UAW is always the one making concessions? They aren't the ones designing or marketing the vehicles.

Why is it the UAW is always the one making concessions? They aren't the ones designing or marketing the vehicles..

Probably has something to do with UAW benefits being the lion's share of costs? Hell garage, look at GM's own website. They flat out admit they provide benefits to one million retirees in addition to the 100,000 currently employed. So what is your answer garage? Am I supposed to do my 'patriotic duty' and buy a GM car at a higher price so UAW workers can retire at 55?

"UAW members voted 74 percent in favor of the deal that includes giving up cost-of-living raises and performance bonuses and one paid holiday in 2010 and 2011."

Oooohhhh Aaaaaah... the pain the horror. Give me a freaking break! Boo freaking Hoo. They give up one paid holiday out of what? 12 or 14 days. Cost of living bonus? Be still my beating heart. I think the rest of us have given that bonus up in the form of higher taxes to subsidize the expansion of Government freebies and the coming runaway inflation.

You don't have a freaking clue how much it costs to have employees, do you? Much less UNION employees.

I'm on the Board of Directors of a small utlity district and the cost of employees for health insurance, retirement contributions, workers comp, payroll taxes, unemployment taxes etc is almost 80 cents the dollar and getting ready to go up because of the unfunded pension liablity due to the downturn in the market.

So for every dollar we pay employees we pay an additional .80 cents and going to go up due to unfunded pension liablities because the State Fund has tanked. Unsustainable.

This is coming to a screeching halt because we are going to have the employees pay for a portion of their health insurance and a portion of their own retirement. You would think we were asking them to be Waterboarded. Just multiply this by the millions of dollars of payroll from the automakers and their UNYIELDING Unions.

Concessions by the Unions, my ass.

Should executives get big bonuses. No. But that is no excuse for the vampire unions sucking the life out of their own livelyhoods. Short sighted and I have ZERO sympathy. None. Nada. Zip.

During my insurance career, I worked for a health insurer for about 3 years and saw first hand a quote provided to a certain auto company. The quote was based upon:

$5 physician office co-pay$5 prescription drug co-pay$100 annual deductible which was applied to the total out of pocket (OOP) cost of $1000 after which the insurer paid 100%$25 Emergency room co-pay$1,000,000 lifetime benefit

Needless to say the premium was, shall we say, high.

My current plan is a standard 80-20 plan with a $1000 deductible applied to a total OOP of $5000 after which insurer pays 100%.

garage, there are myriad proposals that would cover people universally but still permit choice and respect the right to property and liberty.

But the left couldn't give shit about any of that.

Medical leftists are the worst; they've taken over all of academia, and are among the biggest advocates for socialsism ...erm, single payer. Almost all of those advocates have the time to advocate because they belong to universities... the citadels of leftist thought.

I can only name one in the last 27 years and that car made the late 70 US Models appear to be stellar vehicles.

For good reason, Fiat abandoned the American market in 1983 after introducing a series of unreliable, horrible cars. They stranded hundreds of thousands of Fiat owners without service, parts or warranty, rendering their car value worthless.

garage: We import 600,000 vehicles from S Korea and we export 6000. Free trade is only for American suckers.

You cant be so stupid as to think there is only one variable [vehicles] in the equation.

For example:

"This is a strong deal for America's farmers and ranchers, who will gain substantial new access to Korea's large and prosperous market of 48 million people," Karan Bhatia, the deputy U.S. trade representative, said in Seoul on Monday." - 2007

That's why I've heard Republicans all these years steering their kids into a career path of working on a line in Detroit. I never cease to be amazed at how Republicans drape themselves in the flag while simultaneously calling for the death of American companies and jobs.

------

That's so funny. My parents were FDR 'he electified the farms' Democrats. My Dad was the president of this local.

What I experienced - not what I heard - was my mob-dominated union steward physically manhandling me because my union application got lost.

I read about Democrats caring about the little guy, then I read about 80 percent of union pension funds being underfunded (raided by the mob) and I throw up a little in my mouth.